This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: handling of empty LD_RUN_PATH ?


On Monday 23 October 2006 09:37, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > does it make sense at all to update ld/emultempl/elf32.em to verify that
> > LD_RUN_PATH is a non-empty string ?  cant seem to find any documentation
> > on the subject other than "... the contents of the environment variable
> > LD_RUN_PATH will be used if it is defined."
>
>  Hmm, shouldn't empty LD_RUN_PATH be treated the same as one containing
> just ":"?

that is pretty much how it's handled currently ... except that in the case 
of ":", you force $PWD to be searched twice ...

but that is the question i posed, do we ignore an empty LD_RUN_PATH (like 
Debian) or do we tweak the documentation to explicitly say it is allowed ?
-mike

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]